BF2S Forums Should America stop helping countries that don't like them?

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

To answer your question, I'll ask you one.  Why do you ask rhetorical questions?  You've already blamed them both in your question.  Or can you not see that when a crowded mall or diner is the target of palestinians that the israelis have a right to defend themselves.  I guess in your genius intellect you left that out.

Yes, the appropriate use of security and force to counter specific threats would be justified.

If you are really asking why I ask rhetorical questions, then the answer is in the definition:

define:rhetorical

"Rhetoric (from Greek ρητωρ, rhêtôr, "orator") is one of the three original liberal arts or trivium (the other members are dialectic and grammar). While it has meant many different things during its 2500-year history, it is generally described today as the art of persuasion through language. Rhetoric can describe a persuasive way in which one relates a theme or idea in an effort to convince. "

define:rhetorical question

"indicates a question posed for effect, one that requires no answer. Instead, it often provokes thought, lends emphasis to a point, asserts or denies something without making a direct statement, launches further discussion, introduces an opinion, or leads the reader where the writer intends. Sometimes a writer throws one in to introduce variety in a paragraph full of declarative sentences. ..."

However, since I was actually expecting an answer to this question then I would consider it more of a hypothetical question, in which I simply put forward an alternative but unproven scenario to try and create a parallel in the mind of the reader to another situation which they have drawn a conclusion which I believe is unjust.

So I'll ask the question again, and before you decide that it doesn't merit an answer, please read the question carefully:

IF the State of Israel was responsible for excessive and bloody violence would that mean that you would try to blame the entire religion of Judaism, or just those responsible for the violence?

And I'll state my conclusions in advance for all your possible responses:

A: Blame Judaism itself: At least you're consistent, although you may have some facist tendancies which you really should deal with.
B: Blame individuals: Then you should do the same for other religions, or you could be easily be accused of double standards.
C: Ignore the question or try to change the subject again: For some reason you wish to avoid answering the question, perhaps you think that it's A and B depending on which religion is being discussed.

To be honest, you probably are best off sticking with C and not giving me any more ammo to shoot you with, and this is response I expect.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

To answer your question, I'll ask you one.  Why do you ask rhetorical questions?  You've already blamed them both in your question.  Or can you not see that when a crowded mall or diner is the target of palestinians that the israelis have a right to defend themselves.  I guess in your genius intellect you left that out.

Yes, the appropriate use of security and force to counter specific threats would be justified.

If you are really asking why I ask rhetorical questions, then the answer is in the definition:

define:rhetorical

"Rhetoric (from Greek ρητωρ, rhêtôr, "orator") is one of the three original liberal arts or trivium (the other members are dialectic and grammar). While it has meant many different things during its 2500-year history, it is generally described today as the art of persuasion through language. Rhetoric can describe a persuasive way in which one relates a theme or idea in an effort to convince. "

define:rhetorical question

"indicates a question posed for effect, one that requires no answer. Instead, it often provokes thought, lends emphasis to a point, asserts or denies something without making a direct statement, launches further discussion, introduces an opinion, or leads the reader where the writer intends. Sometimes a writer throws one in to introduce variety in a paragraph full of declarative sentences. ..."

However, since I was actually expecting an answer to this question then I would consider it more of a hypothetical question, in which I simply put forward an alternative but unproven scenario to try and create a parallel in the mind of the reader to another situation which they have drawn a conclusion which I believe is unjust.

So I'll ask the question again, and before you decide that it doesn't merit an answer, please read the question carefully:

IF the State of Israel was responsible for excessive and bloody violence would that mean that you would try to blame the entire religion of Judaism, or just those responsible for the violence?

And I'll state my conclusions in advance for all your possible responses:

A: Blame Judaism itself: At least you're consistent, although you may have some facist tendancies which you really should deal with.
B: Blame individuals: Then you should do the same for other religions, or you could be easily be accused of double standards.
C: Ignore the question or try to change the subject again: For some reason you wish to avoid answering the question, perhaps you think that it's A and B depending on which religion is being discussed.

To be honest, you probably are best off sticking with C and not giving me any more ammo to shoot you with, and this is response I expect.

Your question is severly flawed.  Look at the possible answers.  Why whould Judaism be blamed for the state's actions?  It's a democracy.  You're trying to compare apples to oranges.  Since your intellect is so incalculable you should have already picked up on that fact. 

Now some facts for you:
Syrian government sponsors terrorists.
In Syria one cannot protest in the streets without government sponsorship and that comes along with a support staff, police, and security services including the secret police.
Palestinian is now run by terrorists.
Iran is a theocracy.
Iran's leader openly calls for the destruction of the US and Israel.


If you worded the question to where it read: IF the State of Israel, being a supporter and perpetrator of terrorism, having been involved in terrorism and citizen execution, and being run by mullahs, was responsible for excessive and bloody violence would that mean that you would try to blame the entire religion of Judaism, or just those responsible for the violence?

Then my answer would be both the state and religion.  But since you again leave out key facts or truths as I like to call them then your question couldn't be accurately answered.  But in your genius you knew that already... right?

'Syrian government sponsors terrorists'

Can you prove this? Beyond what Bush and co. have said?

'Palestine is now run by terrorists'

If democracy elects a terrorist, then he stands. We're meant to be helping democracy, not destroy it.

Sure, we should try and get him out, but DO NOT appoint a dictator as we did in Cambodia, who will just run over the country countless times.

'Iran is a theocracy.
Iran's leader openly calls for the destruction of the US and Israel.'

Iran's leader is not fit for that position. He is stupid and ignorant (of the fact that Israel has about 100 nukes, and could, as I said, obliterate his country to kingdom come).

Marconius wrote:

So you feel that the US should completely drop out of the world economy just because a vast majority of the rest of the world never supported the "war on terror" in the first place?  This whole Nationalist petulance will not fly very far in today's world.

There's a lot more to the anti-US terrorism than meets the eye, and undoubtedly the unsupportive countries can only look at us and go "You know...it's your problem, not ours, and you started it way back in the 60's and 70's."  Being an ally during WWII is one thing, but fighting against an enemy that we helped train and instate into power a few decades ago is something completely different.

The tax money abroad also really depends on the people we've voted into power.  They control and handle who gets what with our tax dollars.  So if you happen to not like where it is going, it's your job to vote out your House Reps and Senators, not the rest of the world.

You sir,
are not an idiot.

yerded wrote:

headrippa wrote:

2ndLt.Tucker wrote:

Ok vote me in as the next President ill fix all the bitching....All our money goes to us...well still trade and export but no more hand out to countries that are suffering and ungrateful towards us.  We wont play world police anymore. Well attack those who threaten us and then leave them in chaos.  Let the "UN" actually do their own policing...oh yeah well pull the funding from the UN to save our taxpayers a couple billion a year.  We fund 90% of the UN anyway so then it will crumble.  Well keep developing our technology leaving everyone behind in the dust to where those who do want to fight us won't stand a chance in hell.  Even if we become an Isolationist nation again I think the world would bitch how we dont share our luxuries with everyone else.  World disaster happens so what deal with it yourselves. No matter what we do we always are critisized.  Its like a damn passenger telling you how to drive a standard when they have no clue how to put it in 1st gear.  I'm sick all the bad mouthing...any other americans feel this way cause I am normally a very calm person and open to compromises but hell even those get critisized by the world.

You'd last a week before you were assinated.

Your dollar is currently going down quicker than Jenna Jameson, what are you going to do ??? Print more money and not tell anyone ?

The world never asked you to play world police. A lot of you yanks think you single handedly won WW2, when in fact Berlin was taken mainly by the russians.

You'll attack those who threaten you ???   Well lets say a country in the middle of South Africa, lets pick Chad, decides to attack you, how are you going to attack them back ???  You'll need air space permission even to get there, and I doubt surrounding countries will let you use their land for HQ and so on, since you only concern yourself.  What will you do then...attack them as well.

Your technology is hardly cutting edge in some sectors. Your tv system is NTSC which is hardly superior to PAL.  Most of your technological breakthru's have come from scientists that have defected to your country for freedom...ect  atom bomb/nuclear technology.

What luxuries will you have without your major thirst for oil ??? Your own supply cant keep your ever hungry 16lt V12's running.  Hummers and the like will be sitting on the sidewalk for free in 50 years. What about your 160" Plasma TV's....made in China, sorry you have any of them as China wont trade with you.

Oil rich countries wont supply you with oil as you have nothing they need.  Also basic goods and services will cost you an arm and a leg, as once all the illegals are out of your country, your population wont work those "minority" jobs for the same rate of pay. They'll want more money to do it, and with that prices will rise.


I don't mind any country helping out another country, but firstly let the other country ask for help, dont just go in and help when it isnt warranted.

Also Australia has wiped out it's debt, America is $10 Trillion in debt, your president is a mongoloid who's approval rating is laughable, and your dollar is worth shizen.  I'm predicting very bad things for you lot within 50 years.

I admit our debt is a problem.

1) Americans are smart; were are buying the worlds oil reserves while greatly improving refineries and figuring out the ultimate ways to tap OUR OWN vast reserves. Europe will be screwed when the mullahs finally do turn off the spigot, at that time we will turn on our own.

Has your head been up your ass ???  Oil is running out, Europe is leading the way with hybrid cars and other alternative fuels.


2} the world certainly has done more than ask us to be the world police; it has fucking well demanded it. Everytime there is some fashionable conflict that we DONT intervene we are played as the devils even though its MOSTLY Americans monies that send whatever humanitarian aid there is to whatever nation that is currently being screwed over.

Yeah Vietnam, Russia, Afghanistan, Rwanda, Somalia all thank you for the great work you did there.


3) if a shit pot like Chad threatened to attack I would kind of smirk. If they actually did it I would be the devil himself and sow  so much terror into whomever attacksed us that the survivors would whisper tales around their dung fires for two hundred year after with the message past donwn generation after generation being;
DONT FUCK WITH AMERICA

I used Chad as an example, you cant attack a country that resides amongst other countries as you have no persmission to enter airspace...ect.  Dont Fuck with America is just your gungho rambo bullshit that you've been taught.


4) Americas tech  sector does just fine, thanks. There is a reason why a 230 year old country is leading the world in almost every area.

thats why your 230 year old country wont see out another 230 years.  Your leading the world in jack schitt, look elsewhere apart from your own brewing patriotic cauldron of bullshit and you'll find the truth.

whittsend wrote:

the_heart_attack wrote:

well most people in iraq dont seem to like america but you guys are hell bent on helping them....

As I said, there are a few exceptions.  This is mostly to do with the fact that since we went in and fucked it up, we can't leave until it is fixed; I'd happily support leaving if it didn't mean screwing up the entire middle east for the forseeable future.  In any case, it is about responsibility for one's actions now, and not helping because 'we can afford to'.  If we embraced a policiy that ridiculous, it would soon be self-invalidating.

Australia has one or two troops there as well, if I'm not mistaken.

the_heart_attack wrote:

...or yourselves, to oil.

i cant remember which one.

Don't be obtuse...or if you want to insist on it (as you seem to), please back it up with a fact or two.

Hmm im sure America is really going to admit to stealing Iraqi oil.

Mr.Pieeater wrote:

Hey, lets be honest.  If you guys don't like us, then stop taking our freaking money!  For real!!!  We help the world too much to have you guys say we should mind our own business.  If we don't stop terrorism, who will?  You think it will die out and we will have peace?  I say, we should only help those who support the war on terror.  If you don't support the war, then I hope you government will help you when disaster strikes your country.  The US is number one, deal with it or write your local politician and tell them to stop accept aid from the US.  Actually do something instead of complaining about us.  Break all ties, go on with your lives and save my tax dollars for someone who is worth the time...

I love posts like this.

America doesn't share their money, they just share their explosives.  You want countries to like you?  Stop forcing your redneck democracy on the civilised world and accept that a xenophobic, excessivly religious nation has no place in this world (that's you lot by the way).

just a question in reference to the topic:
define "help", do you consider the US intervention in Iraq to be "help, or the about-to-br intervention  in Iran to be help?



i know you are gonna minus me, and yes i might be a liberal punk-whatever, but that is my right isnt it?

Last edited by spacepelle (2006-05-14 12:07:59)

Know what, f**k this world.

I'm moving to the moon.

whittsend wrote:

-=]DeatH1337[=- wrote:

whittsend wrote:

Don't be obtuse...or if you want to insist on it (as you seem to), please back it up with a fact or two.

Hmm im sure America is really going to admit to stealing Iraqi oil.

Don't be obtuse...or if you want to insist on it (as you seem to), please back it up with a fact or two.

Didn't pick up on it the first time eh?